Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1887-08-31

sof the COMMITTEES was communicated Is No
that they had decided to report : bill omtttins
ell taxes from the list prior to the year 1884,
which was the date Of the first claim that was
ever made that the lands wero taxable. The
company informed me that they would ac-
cept this compromise and desired me to re-
draw tho sections Of the bill which had frst
drawn. Accordingly did 80 and handed the
amended sections to the person who called
for them, the land commissioner of the COM
pany. perhaps, to BIZ pasted over the origin
al sections. leaving the title and preamble I'M
affected. then left the state for the east
and did not return until after the adjourn.
ment OF the legislature, and of course know
personally nothing which took place. l now
find in the ONCE Of the secretary of state the
amended sections as drafted by my steno-
grapher on my typewriter from my dicta ton
pasted on house file backing, with the title
as above stated. and the original title and
preamble omitted. have the
TtPEwR1rER COPY
ofthe bill as originally drafted with tho pre-
amble and title in my ofhce, which can be
seen in my ONCE, BY any ono. mention this
to show that the railroad cou pany as repre-
their land commissioner were entirely salts
fed with the bill as drew it, certainly did
not resort to any concealment, but the bill
stated concisely just what it meant. The
public discussion and argument upon the bill
In which 1t was insisted that back taxes ought
not to be imposed on the railway company's
lands. certainly would never baYe taken
place If it had been intended to conceal from
the legislature its object. think the state
made an excellent bargain. and has got more
out of these lands than she would In any other
way. The company have, 1 am told. paid up
the back taxes, and have paid the current
taxes, and are doing 80 as fast as they
are levied. Why the title and preamble drawn
by me was not used don't know, but may
be permitted to guess that the excellent law
yers who composed the judiciary committee
thought the preamble cumbrous and unnec.
sssary, and that the original title was too
general: neither of which criticisms am
prepared to dispute, but that any inference
of fraud or design to mislead can be drawn
from the change, think it absurd, especial
~ as when the amended bill went back to the
house 1t was understood to be compromise
and to have the endorsement Of the commit
toes OF both houses knowingly made after
full argument. Now as to the action OF the
governor, I was not in the state when the
bill was signed and do not speak of my own
knowledge, but am advised that 80 careful
was he to protect the interests of the state
hat before he would sign the bill he required
a stipulation Diminishing the suit flor it is to
be remembered in this connection that al
though the supreme court had in effect de-
termined that the lands were taxable, they
had not finally decided it but had sent the
suit back to the district court for Hennepin
county, where it was then pendingl. From
the final decision
AN APPEAL
could be taken to the supreme court of the
United States and the litigation protrated for
years. This doubtless had its weight with
him in considering what public policy reQuir'
ed. But not content with this the governor
also required the company to put up security
for 1000 that the company would pay all of
the back taxes provided for in the bill A
check was accordingly deposited and the tax